Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/99, Patrick Begos <begos[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's an interesting intersection between a celebrity's rights in
> > his name and image, and an artist's first amendment rights to
> > paint whatever he wants. In any event, regardless of the merits,
> > it appears that Woods is engaging in scorched-earth tactics to
> > prevent anyone from painting his picture in the future without
> > his permission.
>
> It's an interesting question, but I gotta think the First Amendment
> still trumps the Lanham Act.
>

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, courts have periodically held that the right of publicity prohibits at least the sale, if not the creation, of artwork depicting famous people -- notably busts of Martin Luther King.

Mark Lemley
<mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> Received on Fri Feb 19 1999 - 17:51:39 GMT